Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed]

1. VIEW OF THE EVERGLADES WEST OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, LOOKING NORTH. 2. VIEW FROM THE SAME POINT, BUT LOOKING SOUTH.

3. DRAINAGE CANAL IN THE EVERGLADES WEST OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LOOKING WEST.

[blocks in formation]

rents, the general movement of the water is consistently southward. These facts have long been appreciated, and prompted the belief many years ago that the Everglades could be reclaimed. In 1845 the Legislature of Florida memorialized Congress on this subject, and in 1847 the Secretary of the Treasury, R. J. Walker, appointed Buckingham Smith to report to him his opinion of the feasibility of the plan. In 1850 Congress passed the Arkansas Act, or Swamp and Overflowed Land Grant Act, under which virtually all of the Everglades were patented to the State of Florida; and in 1855 Florida passed an Act creating the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to promote the reclamation project. In 1881 a private company undertook to build a drainage canal from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River, but the work was not well planned and did not succeed. In 1906 the State adopted a fairly definite plan, and the actual work was begun. The plan provided for a series of main canals, to be dredged from the coast to Lake Okeechobee, the object being to lower the level of the lake by about 2 feet, to prevent the overflow of its waters into the Everglades once the water level there had been lowered by these canals. In 1913 five such canals had been completed, and several others had been recommended for construction. The feasibility of actually draining the greater part if not virtually all of the Everglades has been admitted by several expert engineers, and rich crops of sugar cane and garden truck have been grown upon some of the land thus reclaimed. There is, however, difference of opinion as to whether all of the land thus reclaimed will be valuable for agricultural purposes. See DRAinage.

Apparently the first white man to enter the Everglades was a Spaniard, Escalente de Fontenada, who, after being shipwrecked in the Straits of Florida, was taken prisoner and made a slave by the powerful cacique, Calos, known as the Lord of the Everglades. The only other human beings known to have made their home in these fastnesses are the remnant of the Seminole Indians (q.v.) who fled hither after the virtual subjugation of their tribe in 1842. Several expeditions have traversed or explored parts of the Everglades, the more important being those of Major A. P. Williams in 1883, J. E. Ingraham in 1892 (the first actually to cross the great marsh lake), and Lieut. Hugh L. Willoughby in 1897. Considerable literature about this mysterious region has been produced. For the various acts, reports, and other official papers relating to the reclamation scheme, and including much information concerning the region, consult The Everglades of Florida, Senate Document No. 89, 62d Congress, 1st Session (Washington, 1911), for progress of the work up to 1914, Florida Everglades, Report of the Florida Everglades Engineering Commission, Senate Document No. 379, 63d Congress, 2d Session (ib., 1914), and for a readable description of the country, Lieutenant Willoughby's account of his expedition, Across the Everglades (Philadelphia, 1898). Rhodes and Dumont in A Guide to Florida (New York, 1912) present a good brief description; and of the numerous magazine articles the following are especially worthy of notice: Dix and MacGonigle, "The Everglades of Florida," in the Century Magazine, vol. lxix (February, 1905); Willey, "Reclaiming the Everglades," in Cassier's Magazine, vol. xxxix (March, 1911); id., "Draining the Everglades," in the Scientific American, vol. civ, No. 2 (Jan. 21, 1911); and Dimock, "The Passing of a Wilderness," in Scribner's Magazine, vol. xli (March, 1907).

EV'ERGREEN. A town and the county seat of Conecuh Co., Ala., 99 miles east-northeast of Mobile, on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (Map: Alabama, C 4). It is a winter resort, noted for its mineral springs, and has the Second Congressional District Agricultural School and Experiment Station and the State Baptist Orphanage. The town is interested chiefly in agriculture, lumbering, and market gardening, and contains a veneer mill, box factory, and saw mill. The water works and electric-light plant are owned by the municipality. Pop., 1900, 1277; 1910, 1582.

EVERGREEN. A plant which retains its foliage organs throughout the year. Evergreens contrast naturally with deciduous trees. These latter shed their leaves periodically and are leafless for some portion of the year; whereas the leaves of evergreens are more persistent and are either not shed periodically or the old leaves are retained until after the new ones have expanded. The term "evergreen" is used particu larly in the case of trees, and the forests of the world are subdivided into various ecological groups, the basis for which is the nature of the foliage, whether deciduous or evergreen. Evergreen forests are again subdivided into the northern or conifer types, the sclerophyll or winter-rain type, and the tropical type in regions whose atmosphere is always moist. In the last type all gradations are to be found between the deciduous and the evergreen habit. See Forest; LEAF.

EV'ERHART, BENJAMIN MATLACK (18181904). An American author and botanist. He was born near Westchester, Chester Co., Pa., and spent the first 40 years of his life in mercantile pursuits. In 1867 he retired from business and devoted himself to botanical research and to gathering and arranging a great collection of fungi, comprising thousands of specimens. He discovered nearly 300 new species of lichens, mosses, and liverworts, and became known as one of the greatest authorities in this branch of botanical science. In association with J. B. Ellis he founded the Journal of Mycology, the publication of which was subsequently taken up by the United States government. Nine plants have been named in his honor. His principal publications are Ellis's North American Fungi, and The North American Pyrenomycetes, with original illustrations by W. F. Anderson (1892), a valuable monograph.

EVERLASTING FLOWER. A name given to various flowers, among which are certain species of Amaranthus (q.v.) and of Helichrysum. See IMMORTELLE. See Plate of GOLDENROD.

EVERLASTING GOSPEL. See JOACHIM OF FLORIS.

EVERLASTING PEA. See LATHYRUS. EV'ERMANN, BARTON WARREN (1853). An American ichthyologist, born in Monroe Co., Iowa. He graduated from Indiana University in 1886. After serving for 10 years as teacher and superintendent of schools in In. diana and California, he was professor of biology at the Indiana State Normal School in 188691. Entering the service of the United States Bureau of Fisheries in 1888, he became ichthyologist in 1891, had charge of the division of scientific inquiry in 1903-11, and from 1910 to 1914 was chief of the Alaska Fisheries Serv ice. He lectured at Stanford University in 189394, at Cornell in 1900-03, and at Yale in 190306. He was also United States fur-seal commissioner in 1892 and became chairman of the fur-seal board in 1908. His publications include bulletins and reports of the United States Fish Commission and contributions to the proceedings of various societies.

EV'ERSLEY, CHARLES SHAW-LEFEVRE, VISCOUNT (1794-1888). An English politician. He was born in London, was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, was called to the bar in 1819, and entered Parliament in 1830, where he became a steady supporter of the Whig government. He was Speaker of the House of Commons from 1839 to 1857, when he was retired on a pension and made a peer. He served longer than any previous Speaker save Arthur Onslow, who held the office nearly 34 years. EVERSLEY, GEORGE JOHN SHAW-LEFEVRE, first BARON. See SHAW-LEFEVRE.

Jon

EVERY MAN IN HIS HUMOUR. son's first extant comedy, produced at the Globe in 1598, Shakespeare himself taking a part, and printed in 1601. It proved the most vital of Jonson's plays. Garrick, after revising the piece, played the part of Kitely with great success.

EVERY MAN OUT OF HIS HUMOUR. "A Comicall Satyre," by Ben Jonson, produced in 1599 and published in 1600.

EVESHAM, vz'am, originally EOVESHAM. A municipal borough and market town in Worcestershire, England, on the right bank of the navigable Avon, 15 miles southeast of Worcester (Map: England, E 4). It lies in a beautiful and fertile vale and has for many years

been noted for market gardening. It is well built and lighted by gas. The gas works and water supply are owned by the municipality, which also maintains baths and washhouses, public recreation grounds, two public halls, and a public library. It has a grammar school founded in 1546 and a free public school. It has manufactures of gloves and hosiery. An abbey was founded here about 700, of which nothing remains but a fine tower and gateway. The town had its first charter in 1604 from James I. It was the scene of Simon de Montfort's defeat by the royal troops Aug. 4, 1265, terminating the Barons' War. Pop., 1901, 7101; 1911, 8341. Consult New, A Day at Evesham (Evesham, 1881), and id., Evesham (London, 1905). EVET. See EFT.

EVICTION (Lat. evictio, from erictus, p.p. of evincere, from ex, out + vincere, to conquer). The expulsion or removal of a tenant from the possession of real property either by his landlord or by another acting under a paramount title. The term was formerly confined to dispossession by legal process, but it is now applied to every form of dispossession under a title superior to that of the person evicted. Disturbance of possession by a stranger, i.e., by one having no title to the lands in question, is not an eviction, but a trespass, punishable by a tort action. An eviction, on the other hand, whether rightful or wrongful, is not a trespass and is not punishable as for a wrong. Its effect is confined to the dissolution or modification of the relation of landlord and tenant between the lessor and lessee.

An eviction by a landlord of a tenant at will or at sufferance, or of a tenant who has forfeited his estate by the commission of waste, or by the breach of any condition on which the lease depended, is the normal and proper mode of terminating the relation between the parties. The eviction operates ipso facto to determine the tenancy. A similar act of dispossession of one wrongfully in possession of property by the rightful owner is not an eviction, but is more properly described as a reëntry. (See ENTRY, RIGHT OF.) When, however, the person so in possession claims under a lease from a third person, the process may, from his standpoint and in relation to his landlord, be an eviction. Its effect is to terminate the lease and to set the tenant free from his obligations to his landlord. It is an eviction by paramount title. If the eviction in this case be only partial, however, i.e., from part and not the whole of the premises, the tenant may still be liable to his landlord for so much of the premises as remains in his possession.

On the other hand, if the tenant be unlawfully evicted by his landlord, it is immaterial whether the eviction be total or partial. A lease of land carries with it an implied covenant for the quiet enjoyment of the demised premises (i.e., a cove nant that the tenant shall not be disturbed by an unlawful eviction by his landlord or by paramount title), and rests upon the condition that this covenant shall be observed. Any willful eviction from any part of the premises by the landlord's act is a breach of this condition and entitles the tenant to avoid the lease and refuse to pay rent, even though his possession of part of the premises is undisturbed. In this case, however, if the tenant remain in possession of a part of the premises, the rent is only suspended, and he may become liable under the lease again,

if he is restored to the part from which he has been evicted.

Strictly speaking, eviction involves the notion of an actual forcible removal or exclusion from the premises held by a tenant, and at common law nothing less than this would protect him against the claims of his landlord under the lease. This rigid rule has been modified in two particulars in certain of the United States. In Massachusetts and a few other States it has been held that when the premises are claimed by paramount title the tenant is not bound to await a forcible removal, but may yield to a demand for possession made on the premises. In New York it has been held that the landlord may effect an unlawful eviction, and thus release his tenant from his obligations under the lease, without any physical interference, by the process known as a "constructive eviction." This consists of a nuisance willfully maintained by the landlord, either upon or in close proximity to the tenant's premises, of such a character as to deprive the tenant of his rightful enjoyment of them and force him to abandon them. This doctrine has also been applied to a variety of acts or omissions by a landlord which do not come under the ordinary description of a nuisance, such as the refusal of the proprietor of an apartment house to furnish the heat or the elevator service stipulated in the lease. The courts have, upon the contrary, refused to carry the principle to the extent of permitting a tenant to claim a constructive eviction and abandon the premises because of the landlord's failure to make promised repairs, even though the premises are rendered untenantable by such failure.

The rights accruing to a tenant under an eviction may usually be supplemented by a right of action against the landlord for damages, and the tenant may recover under the covenant of quiet enjoyment from the lessor the damages sustained by him as the result of the breach. See LANDLORD AND TENANT, and the authorities there cited.

EVIDENCE. The means by which the truth or untruth of any relevant fact is established in the trial of an action at law. What is and what is not legal evidence is determined primarily by the pleadings in the action. The early commonlaw system of pleading was so devised as to narrow down all matters of dispute between the plaintiff and defendant to a single issue of law or fact. If the issue was one of law, a question was raised for the court only; but if the issue was one of fact, a question was raised for determination by a common-law jury, after a trial in which evidence was introduced on the one side to prove the alleged fact and on the other to disprove it. The whole system presupposed, on the part of the jury, inability to consider more than one issue of fact at a time, and in the consideration of that one issue, to some extent, lack of capacity to give to different classes of logically relevant evidence their proper weight. It is to the historical development of the jury system, therefore, that many rules of the law of evidence may be attributed, which now seem to be unwarranted in logic and unsuited to the times.

Modern systems of pleading permit the raising of numerous issues of fact and have thus imposed on the jury duties requiring a higher standard of intelligence than under the ancient system. The rules of evidence, however, partly because they have been found to be practically sufficient and partly because of the necessity of

fixed and definite rules in the branch of the law, have not undergone a corresponding change, and many matters of evidence logically relevant and of considerable probative force are still not legally admissible evidence because of their supposed tendency to "confuse and mislead the jury."

I. Relevancy. The rule of first importance in the law of evidence is that it must be relevant in order to be legally admissible. Relevancy depends directly or indirectly on the issue raised by the pleadings. Thus, evidence of a fact may be relevant because it tends directly or indirectly to prove or disprove the fact in issue that is affirmed by one side and denied by the other; or because it tends to prove or disprove some matter of evidence already introduced by the other side. But, as has been pointed out, not all logically relevant evidence is legal evidence. Thus, evidence which is logically relevant may not be legally admissible because: (a) Its relevancy is slight or remote. Thus, evidence that the defendant was insolvent at a certain time is not admissible to prove that he borrowed money of the plaintiff at that time. (b) The evidence is of collateral transactions, or (as is sometimes said) res inter alios acta. Thus, in an action to recover damages for negligence it is not permissible to show that the defendant was negli gent towards others than the plaintiff, or on trial of a defendant for stealing, that he stole from others. The general rule is, however, subject to many limitations and modifications more or less arbitrary. Thus, it is permissible to show, in an action of tort, brought to recover for injuries caused by a defective appliance belonging to the defendant, that others were injured by it in a similar manner, and, generally, value of land may be shown by proving the selling price of other land similarly situated. The character of a party to a civil action is not regarded as relevant and is therefore not the subject of evidence unless the character is directly put in issue by the pleadings, as in an action for libel. In a criminal trial, however, the defendant may, if he so elects, introduce evidence of his character, which evidence the prosecution may then rebut.

II. Hearsay. What others than the witness have said before the trial is not generally admissible in evidence because not sworn to and because not subject to cross-examination. This rule, known as the "hearsay-evidence rule," is subject to several exceptions, the most important of which are the following:

(a) Admissions and Confessions.-Statements, either oral or written, made at any time by a party to an action or by his predecessor in interest, may be introduced in evidence against him, but not by him or in his favor. The rule is based upon the inherent probable truth of statements which are prejudicial to the interests of the party making them. Under the rule as to predecessor in interest, the admissions of a deceased person are admissible in evidence in actions against his executor, or admissions as to the title of real estate made by its then owner are admissible in an action founded upon the title brought against his subsequent grantor. Admissions made by an agent within the scope of his authority are admissible in evidence against the principal. Confessions are strictly admissions made by one charged with a crime, and, because of the necessity of safeguarding one charged with a crime, are not admissible when ob

« PreviousContinue »